Supreme Court: Maintenance order passed under S 125 of CRPC should be stayed in exceptional circumstances

 We are constrained to observe that this order

shows total non-application of mind on the part of

the High court. This was a case where maintenance

had been granted to a wife and to a minor son. The

High Court without recording any reason whatsoever,

has stayed the grant of maintenance both to the wife

and to the minor son. This should not be done. A

husband/father is duty bound to maintain his wife and

child. Unless there are very special reasons, the

higher Court should not normally stay such an order.

In the present case no reason has been mentioned

justifying the grant of the stay order.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1399 OF 2019

PRATIMA DEVI Vs  ANAND PRAKASH 

Dated: SEPTEMBER 16, 2019.

1. Leave granted.

2. Though served, no one appears for the

respondent. The appellants, the wife and minor son

of the respondent had filed a petition for grant of

maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal

Procedure Code before the Principal Judge, Family

Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The Principal

Judge by order dated 03.10.2017 passed an order

granting maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- to the appellants,

(Rs. 10,000/- to the wife and Rs. 10,000/- to the

minor son). This order was passed ex-parte. The

respondent filed an application for setting aside the

ex-parte order which application was rejected on

05.09.2018. Aggrieved, the respondent filed criminal

revision No. 986 of 2018 before the High Court. Along

with revision petition an application for stay was

filed. The orders passed in the said petitions read

as follows :

“Trial Court record be requisitioned.

List on 25th November, 2019. in the

meantime, execution proceedings be

kept in abeyance.”

3. We are constrained to observe that this order

shows total non-application of mind on the part of

the High court. This was a case where maintenance

had been granted to a wife and to a minor son. The

High Court without recording any reason whatsoever,

has stayed the grant of maintenance both to the wife

and to the minor son. This should not be done. A

husband/father is duty bound to maintain his wife and

child. Unless there are very special reasons, the

higher Court should not normally stay such an order.

In the present case no reason has been mentioned

justifying the grant of the stay order.

4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order

and direct the payment of maintenance as awarded by

the Family Court. We, however, make it clear that

the High Court after hearing the parties may pass an

appropriate reasoned order. We make it clear that

this order will not come in the way of the High Court

confirming, modifying or vacating the order of the

Family Court.

5. The appeal is, accordingly disposed of.

.................J.

[ DEEPAK GUPTA ]

...................J.

[ ANIRUDDHA BOSE ]

NEW DELHI,

SEPTEMBER 16, 2019.

Print Page